Role of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court in the judicial practice formation

The subject. The article considers the role of the Plenum of Russian Supreme in forming judicial practice on the example of giving qualification to the crimes committed against sexual freedom and inviolability, as well as against property and public health.

The objective of the article is to conduct a complex analysis of the function of the decisions, taken by the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court, in the formation of a unified vector of judicial practice. The authors dare to refute the hypothesis hat judicial practice can be recognized as a source of law.

The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical theory of development and interrelation of phenomena. Historical, formal-logical, systematic methods of knowledge have been identified as relevant to the topic of the study.

The main results, scope of application. The authors draw attention to the problem of evaluative features used in the process of law enforcement when interpreting the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. A norm with such signs acquires an unformalized essence from the point of view of the boundaries of criminalization of a particular phenomenon. On the other hand, the nature of crimes is so diverse that without the flexibility of criminal law regulation (allowing the use of evaluative features), the application of the norm taking into account specific circumstances in a particular case may not be possible. The authors also consider issues related to the characteristics of the objective side, the end time of these crimes, the application of the formula of a single ongoing crime and its separation from related compounds. The process of law enforcement is based on such guidelines as the norms of law, judicial discretion, established judicial practice, the position of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court. Attributing an explanatory role to the decisions of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court does not completely eliminate the shortcomings inherent in legal technology. Correcting the current situation with the help of judicial discretion is not always justified, since this is possible only if there is a legitimate alternative. Assigning the status of a precedent to a judicial decision may lead to the substitution of the law by decisions taken in a particular case.

Conclusions. The judicial practice concerning these issues is completely different. Despite the existence of similar situations, courts, as a rule, qualify an offense using various norms of the law, which negatively affects compliance with the principle of legality. The issue related to the function of the decisions of the Plenum of Russian Supreme Court in the formation of a single vector of judicial practice has been and remains debatable. The continued addition of new articles to criminal legislation, on the one hand, indicates the desire of the legislator to bring it to perfection, but, on the other hand, forms a mechanism for clarifying the rules of its application, which sometimes leads to their contradictory interpretation. At the same time, crime and punishment should be determined only by legislation.

1. Razogreeva A.M. Legal Positions of the Supreme Court of Russian Federation on the Crime Qualification with an “Irrelevant” Subject: a Discourse Analysis. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2020, no. 1, pp. 211–229. DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2020.1.211.229. (In Russ.).

2. Guk P.A. Fundamentals of Judicial Rule-Making, Selected Works. Penza, Penza State University Publ., 2019. 248 p. (In Russ.).

3. Naumov A. Judicial Precedent as a Source of Criminal Law. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya, 1994, no. 1, pp. 8–11. (In Russ.).

4. Tsyganova E.M. Judicial Practice as a Source of Law. Yuridicheskii mir = Juridical World, 2006, no. 2, pp. 69–71. (In Russ.).

5. Guk P.A. Judicial Practice as a Means of Ensuring Certainty of Law Enforcement. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya, 2020, no. 9, pp. 35–38. DOI: 10.18572/0131-6761-2020-9-35-38. (In Russ.).

6. Vasilevich G.A. Interpretation (Explanation) of Normative Legal Acts (Theory and Practice). Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2017, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 19–27. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).19-27. (In Russ.).

7. Meleshko D.A. A Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation On Court Practice in Cases on Crimes Against Sexual Immunity and Sexual Freedom of a Person: Review of Novelties. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2015, no. 3, pp. 47–54. (In Russ.).

8. Lobanova L.V., Larionova L.N. Content of Qualifying Sign “Other Serious Consequences of Rape” in Interpretation of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Vestnik Volgogradskogo universiteta. Seriya 5, Yurisprudentsiya = Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Jurisprudence, 2016, no. 2 (31), pp. 41–48. (In Russ.).

9. Epifanova E.V. Objective Imputation as Reality in Modern Criminal Law. Vestnik Samarskoi gumanitarnoi akademii. Seriya «Pravo», 2007, no. 2, pp. 65–68. (In Russ.).

10. Serednev V.A. The Principle of Objective Intention in Criminal Law, Need for a Real or Return to the Past? Vestnik Amurskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2019, iss. 84, pp. 21–26. (In Russ.).

11. Rarog A.I. Qualification of Crimes by Subjective Signs. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskii tsentr Press Publ., 2002. 304 p. (In Russ.).

12. Ostrovetskaya Yu.A. Problematic Issues of Application of Articles 134 and 135 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Possible Solutions. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya «Ekonomika i pravo» = Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law, 2017, vol. 27, iss. 4, pp. 128–132. (In Russ.).

13. Oberemchenko A.D. Delimitation of Molesting from Other Sexual Offenses. Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve = Gaps in Russian Legislation, 2013, no. 6, pp. 182–186. (In Russ.).

14. Borkov V.N., Nikolaev K.D. Violation of the Rules of Qualification Can Not Compensate Gaps in the Criminal Law. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2020, no. 36, pp. 30–39. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/36/3. (In Russ.).

15. Veklenko V.V. Qualification of Theft. Omsk, Omsk Academy of the Ministry of the Interior Affairs of Russia Publ., 2001. 256 p. (In Russ.).

16. Veklenko V.V., Neshataev V.N. The Content of Qualification of Crimes. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2017, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 101–105. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2017.1(1).101-105. (In Russ.).

17. Alekseev S.S. General Theory of Law, in 2 volumes. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1982. Vol. II. 360 p. (In Russ.).

18. Lopashenko N.A., Golikova A.V., Kobzeva E.V., Kovlagina D.A., Lapunin M.M., Khutov K.M. Public Danger of Crime: The Concept and Criteria of Verification. Pravoprimenenie = Law Enforcement Review, 2020, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 124–140. DOI: 10.24147/2542-1514.2020.4(4).124-140. (In Russ.).

19. Sabitov R.A. Theory and Practice of Criminal-Legal Qualification. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2013. 592 p. (In Russ.).

20. Boitsov A.I. Crimes Against Property. St. Petersburg, Yuridicheskii tsentr Press Publ., 2002. 775 p. (In Russ.).

21. Bikeeva E.S. Illegal Drug Trafficking in the Internet. Probely v rossiiskom zakonodatel'stve = Gaps in Russian Legislation, 2011, no. 6, pp. 240–242. (In Russ.).

22. Bimbinov A.A. The Quality of Regulations About Criminal Liability for the Crimes Which Create Conditions for Illegal Consumption of Drugs. Vestnik Omskoi yuridicheskoi akademii = Vestnik of the Omsk Law Academy, 2017, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 295–299. DOI: 10.19073/2306-1340-2017-14-3-63-67. (In Russ.).

23. Minsadykova E.S. Problems in Combating an Illicit Trafficking in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances in the Russian Federation. Vestnik Ural'skogo instituta ekonomiki, upravleniya i prava = Bulletin of the Ural Institute of Economics, Management and Law, 2016, no. 2 (35), pp. 61–64. (In Russ.).

24. Gadzhimagomedova Sh.S., Nurbagandova M.N., Abdueva A.M. Possession, Manufacture and Transport of Drugs. Moskovskii ekonomicheskii zhurnal = Moscow Economic Journal, 2019, no. 10, p. 80. (In Russ.).

25. Tokmantsev D.V. The Terminal Time of Criminal Drug Production. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2020, no. 4, pp. 53–60. (In Russ.).

26. Knyazkov A.S. Complicity in the Illicit Sale of Drugs and Their Analogues, Perpetrated via Electronic Information and Telecommunication Networks. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Tomsk State University Journal of Law, 2018, no. 30, pp. 53–66. DOI: 10.17223/22253513/30/5. (In Russ.).

27. Anikanov A.K. Classification of Illegal Purchase of a Narcotic Substance for Another Person. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2018, no. 2, pp. 11–15. (In Russ.).

28. Semenova D.M. Problems of Qualification of Continuing Crimes and Cumulative Crimes. Zakonnost' i pravoporyadok v sovremennom obshchestve, 2016, no. 28, pp. 138–142. (In Russ.).

29. Kryukov A.A., Shikhanov V.N. Single Continued Sale of Narcotic Drugs or Psychotropic Substances. Ugolovnoe pravo, 2021, no. 5 (129), pp. 10–19. (In Russ.).

30. Erokhin D.V. Some Problems of Qualification of Crimes in the Field of Illicit Traffic Drugs. Vestnik Omskoi yuridicheskoi akademii = Vestnik of the Omsk Law Academy, 2019, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 96–102. DOI: 10.19073/23061340-2019-16-1-96-102. (In Russ.).